The Globe had an informative piece highlighting the quick rise of Katherine Clark, who has gone from school committee to US Congress in under a decade, and the advantages she brings to the table as a bipartisan leader. It also chats her up as a potential 2018 candidate for Governor, though she gave a fairly decisive ‘no’ to that talk.
Democratic insiders, impressed by her grit and tenacity in Congress, have been buzzing about the 52-year-old lawyer’s future. In recent weeks party chatter, including informal conversations among long-time Democratic players, has even included talk about Clark as a potential candidate for governor in 2018, when Republican Charlie Baker is expected to run for reelection.
While she has ruled out the 2018 race, other insiders think she should give it a go:
They say she has bipartisan accomplishments in Washington to point to, is a strong campaigner, and has a potent issue set — focused on those related to women and children. And while she represents only one-ninth of the state, she has a helpful geographic profile, as a representative for part of Middlesex County, the state’s largest by population.
Most important, they say, she has charisma and a liberal spark to generate enough enthusiasm to be a serious contender.
“She’s a candidate people could get excited about,” said strategist Scott Ferson, “not just, ‘Which sacrificial lamb should we throw against Charlie Baker?’ ”
I happen to think she would make a great candidate for Governor, but I also think she has the potential to move up quickly in House leadership where Massachusetts could use more clout. She also would make a great Senator if either of our talented incumbents ever retired. So the sky is really the limit, in the meantime, she has done a great job responding to the needs of her district and is becoming a national voice against cyberbullying and in favor of women’s rights and paid leave. A rising star to watch.
merrimackguy says
Unless there are major problems between now and 2018, can you see the electorate “firing” Gov Baker and replacing him with Rep. Clark because they think she can do a better job? In my mind unlikely, but if Baker’s in trouble I think that AG Healy is in first.
Next open Senate seat JK3 reclaims it for the clan.
The one after that is Clark’s.
jconway says
I agree with Bob that the Globe was lame to include such speculation in an otherwise decent write up of a local politico who has been quite effective in a short amount of time. She has my vote against JK3 in a Senate primary fwiw, not that I dislike him but she has been more effective in Congress in a shorter amount of time. Baker deserves a first tier opponent, even if he is, as I suspect, a lock for re-election.
dasox1 says
The Globe’s gubernatorial bent, in the story, detracted from an otherwise good piece. To stick with the corner-office musings, if things keep going as they are for Baker, you’d think that he’ll win re-election. I’d still like to see us mount a big challenge. Seems, like no one serving in Congress ever wants to come home and run for governor; so many would-be, strong candidates have taken a pass over the years. Two strong candidates, Clark and Healy have both ruled it out. Hopefully, Wolf will run. Others? Run; you never know—maybe angry Gov. Charlie the tea-partier will show up again. Baker version 1.0 didn’t fare too well.
jconway says
In this case on an uphill gamble. I think Wolf’s resignation from the Senate is proof that he will go for it, and at this point he seems like the most likely to run with a clear shot at Baker. Seti Warren hasn’t ruled himself out, it’s no secret he has wanted to run for higher office for years and this will likely be an easier race to get a higher profile out of, win or lose. Curtatone has a similar ambition and would still keep his day job if he lost. Driscoll has to campaign again in 2017 close to the start of the cycle, and the fact that she turned down other higher profile races she could’ve run in without losing her current seat (MA-07 and both Senate Specials) leads me to think she enjoys the job she has.
We could see one of the Western MA mayors or state legislators get in on the mix as well to raise their profile. I see Chang-Diaz and Eldridge taking a pass since they would lose their seats. And I saw Marty taking a pass since he doesn’t want to run against Baker, though if he get’s re-elected I don’t see him being a lifer like Menino. He will probably run statewide after 2018. Ditto Healey.
dasox1 says
To the risk of losing your seat in the House (particularly) the Republican controlled house, I say “just go for it.” Congress need not be a job for life. Frankly, I was thinking more about Capuano, JK II, Markey, Frank, etc., than the newer members of Congress. I just wonder how a JK III or Clark could do against Baker. It could be a good race. I hope you’re right about Wolf. I read that he felt like he was stretched too thin running the airline and being in the state senate which made me wonder if his days in public service are over. Hope not. Can’t wait for Governor Healy—whenever that happens.
jconway says
And the sad reality is, you are more likely to gain higher office if you currently occupy a lower office. It’s why Meehan ain’t running for anything, despite his warchest, because his public profile has faded (and he is making a killing in his day job). It’s why JK2 isn’t running for anything, and you probably won’t see Delahunt or Tierney mount comebacks for different offices either.
Capuano is an interesting story. He has alienated himself from Nancy Pelosi and clearly has wanted to move up for awhile. He is getting a little too old and his stump performance wasn’t great against Coakley in the 2010 special-but I think he brings a wealth of executive and legislative experience and two and a half decades worth of progressive votes in the House. I can’t imagine he is going anywhere in Congress, and it might be worth one last shot. Time will tell.
Mark L. Bail says
to make Carmen Ortiz the governor?
Schmucks.
Christopher says
…but MUST we run to the complete opposite extreme and throw up our hands in the first year of his term and say oh well, he’s unbeatable, might as well not try? Do people WANT a re-run of the 1994 gubernatorial election in this state? We should not wait until we have a candidate. Part of the opposition party’s job is to soften him up a bit by consistently offering a different agenda. Lots can happen in the next three years so I don’t know why some supposedly smart politicos on BMG are already calling him a lock for re-election.
SomervilleTom says
I enthusiastically agree with you.
It’s hard for the “opposition party” to accomplish that when the agenda of its legislative leader is so closely aligned with Mr. Baker on all the issues that matter.
jconway says
And hasn’t made any major mistakes. On some issues: the film credit, keeping casinos in check, the Olympics, and managing DCF-he has been significantly more effective than Deval Patrick. Jury is still out on the T control board, but friends who are transit advocates are saying he has actually listened to their concerns.
I am a big fan of Joe Curtatone and Dan Wolf. Whether I am an HKS student or not, by 2018 I intend to be back in Massachusetts and if nurses are paid as much as I think they are, I might be able to work on a campaign full time. I’d work for either of those guys in a heartbeat.
But let’s also be realistic, it’s unlikely this race will attract a top tier candidate. Which may be a good thing. Deval was an under the radar choice after all, so if this lets our members deeper on the bench get a first crack at the bat over our starters-all the better in my view.
dasox1 says
In addition to not making many mistakes, he has created a perception that he’s non-ideological and cares only about making government work. I think that aligns with what many people in this state want. He’s going to be hard to beat.
centralmassdad says
I have heard anecdotal evidence from people connected with DCF, not otherwise likely to lean Republican, who have been quite favorably impressed with the administration’s attention to the administration of DCF.
Mark L. Bail says
nomination. And he hasn’t screwed up yet. But I haven’t ever met anyone who could predict the future four years out.
There’s nothing wrong with working with Baker, but there is no reason to share his agenda unnecessarily. I think the senate is being more circumspect about his policies.
centralmassdad says
The Dem legislature doesn’t share his agenda “unnecessarily.” They share his agenda because that’s their agenda. You guys want them to attack, and maybe weaken, the governor, but haven’t noticed that, for 40 years now, our Democratic legislature only attacks a governor if the governor is a liberal.
Mark L. Bail says
“you guys.” I’ve pointed out time and again that I think the people who would be Republicans in other states are Democrats in this state because we’re the only game in town.
I’m also not naive enough to think progressives can somehow bring the Democratic Party to heel, if we try really, really hard. We are part of the Party, hardly all of it. The Democratic Party reflects the amalgam of Massachusetts voters. We don’t have a parliamentary system with individual parties hewing closely to a particular ideology. We have a big, messy party with people sharing a spectrum of beliefs. Democrats certainly support Democratic candidates, but the overwhelming number of voters supporting them are are unenrolled. The people we elect reflect the people who support them more than anyone here seems to be willing to accept.
jcohn88 says
Charlie’s been office for less than a year, and people are already calling his re-election. There are THREE FULL YEARS until November 2018.
And I fully agree with the point about offering a concrete, distinct agenda. A certain degree of cooperation is necessary (The legislature could use its supermajority if they wanted, but they won’t–in part because of the large number of conservative Democrats). But people do need to hear a steadily beating drum about how Charlie is taking us down the wrong path.
I am still amazed by how little the party has said about Charlie’s effort to roll back all of our environmental, public health, consumer protection, etc., regs via exec order. That matters. But I’m sure no one knows. And if they did know, given the Democrats’ pumping up his innocuous image, they’d probably think, “Oh, not Charlie.”
You can be a respectful opposition, but you have to be an opposition.
jconway says
I don’t want him to get re-elected, I am arguing that we are on a trajectory where he will get re-elected for precisely the reasons you two and many others have outlined. And a large reason has to do with the fact that a significant number of our state party in power, the kind of Democrats excited to win an Elkey for instance, are really happy they have a Beacon Hill insider they can do business with after 12 years of outsiders unwilling to schmooze or play ball. And the irony is, it is the corruption and malfeasance of the same pro-Baker Democrats that will contribute to the ‘check on the legislature’ song and dance that will likely enable the same coalition of unenrolleds and suburban Democrats to vote for him again. We can only stop it by pushing a progressive agenda, one that challenges our own party’s fiefdoms in the legislature and the Governor’s agenda.
merrimackguy says
He’s asked for review.
dasox1 says
I want to crush him. I’m just pointing out what I think the current state of affairs is.
merrimackguy says
I don’t get it.
dasox1 says
But, that’s because you’re probably being intentionally obtuse. Big picture, I’m a progressive, and he’s a Republican.
merrimackguy says
not even Progressives. I would prefer that we all be citizens together, and when someone I support wins, I don’t feel good about the other side losing.
Do you want people you hate to die? I’m guessing that might be the case.
centralmassdad says
and replacing him with someone who else who will work closely with Sp. DeLeo will be a victory for progressivism, or something. Maybe he’s hoping for free slot machine spins for everyone.
thebaker says
LOL
johnk says
Voting for positions that you don’t support is stupid. So when CMD and others point out that people should vote for Republicans, it’s moronic.
Republicans in MA have themselves to blame, MA GOP is a joke. If anyone over there had a brain they would have more seats. But they don’t.
If you are progressive, and you want to move towards more progressive positions, then vote for people who share those values. If there is an entrench Dem who ‘s positions you don’t agree with then work to get that person primaried.
Why would you vote for a Republican, unless they had progressive positions that you more closely agreed with. Psst. they don’t. That option is stupid.
The Green Party almost has as much relevance as the Republican party if you want to jump ship as some kind of statement as CMD has been posting ad nauseam.
jconway says
Primary every bad Democrat, but the reality is there are some districts where only a conservative Democrat could gain election. And I would happy to see those Democrats replaced by Republicans who are better in two important regards-they will vote Bradley Jones instead of Bobby Deleo and they will vote to re-instate speaker term limits. Expanding the GOP caucus from 35 to 60 seats at the expense of the Jim Miceli’s of the world will give wiggle room for the 40 or so Progressive Caucus members to work with the GOP on procedural reforms that will have the affect of making the house more progressive. I call this move the ‘Reverse Finneran’.
jconway says
Pretty sure Bobby is happier with Charles is in charge.
dasox1 says
Can’t stand DeLeo. A progressive governor would do a much better job taking on DeLeo.
merrimackguy says
nt
sabutai says
I also take this as an effort to gin up a credible opponent to Maura Healey. Primaries sell papers.
Trickle up says
I read the Globe story and thought: Party whip? Speaker of the House?